AIRSPAN NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Airspan Networks, Inc., certain of the underwriters of its initial public offering, and:

On and after July 23, 2001, three Class Action Complaints were filed. These suits were later consolidated. The Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information.

In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter-defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

This action is being coordinated with approximately three hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims against it and the Individual Defendants. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants. This dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a) control person claims without prejudice, since these claims were asserted only against the Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the Company, but allowed the Section 11 claim to proceed.

On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions. In her Opinion, Judge Shira Scheindlin noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases. Judge Scheindlin determined that the class period for Section 11 claims is the period between the IPO and the date that unregistered shares entered the market. Judge Scheindlin also ruled that a proper class representative of a Section 11 class must have purchased shares during the appropriate class period; and have either sold the shares at a price below the offering price or held the shares until the time of suit. In two of the six cases, the class representatives did not meet the above criteria and therefore, the Section 11 cases were not certified. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the Airspan case.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between it, the Individual Defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants and the Individual Defendants currently or formerly associated with those companies. Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of the Company and the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. The Company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims it may have against its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers' settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to contribute the difference.

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications consistent with its opinion. Judge Scheindlin ruled that the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims.

The suit is styled "In re Airspan Networks, Inc. Initial Public Offering Sec. Litigation," related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

The steering rods can separate, causing the driver to lose steering control. This could cause the ATV to crash and pose a risk of serious injury or death. Honda has received 27 reports of steering rod separation. No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes 2004-2005 FourTrax Honda ATVs. The ATVs are red, olive, yellow or blue and have "Honda" written on the fuel tank. The following models are included in recall:

The model numbers can be found on the identification label located on the left side of the frame down tube. The VIN number is stamped on the front side of the frame.

Manufactured in the United States, the ATVs were sold at Honda motorcycle dealers nationwide from August 2003 through February 2005 for between $3,600 and $8,000.

Consumers should stop using the recalled ATVs immediately. Registered owners of the vehicles will be notified directly by American Honda about the recall. All recalled vehicles will be repaired free of charge.

Consumer Contact: For more information, consumers should call Honda toll-free at (866) 784-1870 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit their Web site: http://www.powersports.honda.com.

AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Withdraw Securities Suits--------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the securities class actions filed against American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc., four of its officers and American BioScience, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and rule 10b-5, principally relating to purportedly false and misleading statements made by the Company regarding ABRAXANE. The action alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements with respect to the drug Abraxane, a reformulated version of Taxol, under development for the treatment of breast cancer. Throughout the Class Period, defendants touted Abraxane as a safer and more effective alternative to Taxol, the world's best-selling chemotherapy drug for cancer.

AMERICAN PHYSICIANS: MI Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against American Physicians Capital, Inc., its former President and Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer.

On December 30, 2003 an February 20, 2004, separate putative shareholder class action complaints were filed, alleging violations of federal securities laws for certain disclosures made by the Company between February 13, 2003 and November 6, 2003 regarding its operating results and the adequacy of its reserves. The suits sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount.

On March 23, 2004, the Court dismissed the first case and entered an Order approving a lead plaintiff in the second case.The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on May 7, 2004. On June 28, 2004, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion was successful and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice on January 12, 2005, and no appeal was filed prior to the now expired deadline.

ARKANSAS: Bentonville School Board Asked To Approve $1.9M Deal--------------------------------------------------------------The Bentonville School Board has been asked to approve a $1.9 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit involving Amendment 59, concluding a more than eight-year court battle, The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports.

As previously reported in the April 14, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, the board had set out to review the possible settlement in a lawsuit seeking refunds of over collected property taxes.

Superintendent Gary Compton told the Democrat-Gazette that Board members initially planned a special meeting within this week but two members could not attend, thus the board will now review the settlement during its regular monthly meeting. The meeting is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. in the Board of Education building. In a memo contained in the meeting agenda, Mr Crompton told the board, "As difficult as it is for me to recommend this settlement, I do believe the amount to be fair and proportionate."

The settlement is connected to the class action lawsuit that claims local school districts and governments violated Amendment 59 of the Arkansas Constitution by over collecting property taxes.

As previously reported in the February 22, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, the suit was filed in 1997 and alleges that property owners in Benton County were overtaxed. According to Dale Evans, one of the attorneys who filed the suit, as soon as it was filed, property taxes in the county were considered "paid under protest" allowing them to be questioned in court. Taxes paid before then traditionally could not be challenged, however attorneys are protesting that fact, and the state Supreme Court in 2000 said they can pursue their argument: That taxpayers had no way of knowing the assessments were illegal.

Mr. Evans and Kent Hirsch both of whom filed the lawsuit back in 1997, claims local school districts and governments violated Amendment 59 to the Arkansas Constitution by over collecting property taxes for several years in the 1990s. Amendment 59 limits the increase in property tax revenue from reappraisals to 10 percent per year for each taxing entity such as a school district or city. When a taxing entity's revenue collection would increase more than 10 percent because of property reappraisal, Amendment 59 triggers a mileage rollback though the limit does not apply to increases resulting from new construction or improvements.

Mr. Evans told the Springdale Morning News that representatives of the Bentonville School District tentatively agreed to a $1.9 million settlement.

The entities named in the suit were the cities of Rogers and Lowell, Northwest Arkansas Community College, Benton County and the school districts of Bentonville, Rogers, Siloam Springs and Gravette. The school districts, city of Rogers, Benton County and NWACC have settled.

ATHEROGENICS INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suits in NY, GA----------------------------------------------------------------AtheroGenics, Inc. and some of its executive officers and directors face several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 5, 2005 and February 8, 2005 and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta division on January 7, 2005, January 10, 2005, January 11, 2005 and January 25, 2005.

The allegations in these lawsuits relate to the Company's disclosures regarding the results of the CART-2 clinical trial for AGI-1067. The suits allege the Company misled the public about AGI-1067's effectiveness. The lawsuits seek damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought Company securities from after hours trading on September 27, 2004 through and including December 31, 2004. The suits claim that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January 13,2005) states.

The complaints also name as defendants:

(1) Russell Medford, M.D., who was at all relevant times the Company's President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director;

(2) Mark Colonnese, who at all relevant times served as the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration, and Secretary; and

(3) Robert Scott, who at all relevant times served as Senior Vice President of Clinical Development and Regulatory Affairs and Chief Medical Officer

The first identified complaint is styled "Purisma Andrada, et al. v. Atherogenics, Inc., et al., case no. 05-CV-00061," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

BA-2003 LIMITED: Tenants File IL Suit Over Mold, Fungus Growth--------------------------------------------------------------BA-2003 Limited Partnership and Independent Management Services, the owners of the Bissel Apartments in Venice, Illinois face a class-action suit filed in Madison County Circuit Court of allowing mold and fungus to grow on their property, posing a health hazard to residents, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of lead plaintiffs Kesha Manning and her two minor children and Claude Taylor against owners. Filed by the Alton law firm of Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr, is also identifies additional plaintiffs who are "similarly situated."

According to the complaint, mold was on surfaces and airborne at the complex. The management of the complex declined to comment other than to say that 77 people reside there, the Post-Dispatch reports. The suit stipulates that all members of the class are citizens of Illinois, that no class member is seeking damages in excess of $75,000 and that the total of all damages does not exceed $5 million. Those elements would allow the suit to be filed in a state court. Under a new law enacted in February, class actions involving defendants from multiple states must be filed in federal courts.

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues To Face CA Energy Antitrust Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------CenterPoint Energy, Inc. continues to face a large number of lawsuits filed in both federal and state courts in California and Nevada in connection with the operation of the electricity and natural gas markets in California and certain other western states in 2000-2001, a time of power shortages and significant increases in prices. The suits also names other energy and natural gas companies as defendants.

These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as class actions, are based on a number of legal theories, including violation of state and federal antitrust laws, laws against unfair and unlawful business practices, the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act, false claims statutes and similar theories and breaches of contracts to supply power to governmental entities. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits, which include state officials and governmental entities as well as private litigants, are seeking a variety of forms of relief, including recovery of compensatory damages (in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory damages and punitive damages, injunctive relief, restitution, interest due, disgorgement, civil penalties and fines, costs of suit, attorneys' fees and divestiture of assets.

To date, some of these complaints have been dismissed by the trial court and are on appeal, several of which dismissals have been affirmed by the appellate courts, but most of the lawsuits remain in early procedural stages. The Company's former subsidiary, Reliant Resources, Inc. (RRI), was a participant in the California markets, owning generating plants in the state and participating in both electricity and natural gas trading in that state and in western power markets generally. RRI, some of its subsidiaries and, in some cases, corporate officers of some of those companies have been named as defendants in these suits.

The Company or its predecessor, Reliant Energy, have been named in approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between 2001 and 2004 and are pending in California state courts in Alameda County, Los Angeles County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County and San Diego County, in Nevada state court in Clark County, in federal district courts in San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Fresno, Sacramento and Nevada and before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Company, CenterPoint Houston and Reliant Energy were not participants in the electricity or natural gas markets in California. The Company and Reliant Energy have been dismissed from certain of the lawsuits, either voluntarily by the plaintiffs or by order of the court and the Company believes it is not a proper defendant in the remaining cases and will continue to seek dismissal from such remaining cases. On July 6, 2004 and on October 12, 2004, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Company's removal to federal district court of two electric cases brought by the California Attorney General and affirmed the federal court's dismissal of these cases based upon the filed rate doctrine and federal preemption.

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Two State Suits Removed To TX Federal Court---------------------------------------------------------------Two Texas State class actions filed against CenterPoint Energy, Inc. with respect to rates charged to certain consumers of natural gas in the State of Texas were removed to two separate Texas federal courts.

In October 2002, a suit was filed in state district court in Wharton County, Texas against the Company, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corporation (CERC), Entex Gas Marketing Company, and certain non-affiliated companies alleging fraud, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violations of the Texas Utilities Code, civil conspiracy and violations of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act. Subsequently the plaintiffs added as defendants:

(1) CenterPoint Energy Marketing Inc.,

(2) CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company,

(3) United Gas, Inc.,

(4) Louisiana Unit Gas Transmission Company,

(5) CenterPoint Energy Pipeline Services, Inc., and

(6) CenterPoint Energy Trading and Transportation Group, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that defendants inflated the prices charged to certain consumers of natural gas.

In February 2003, a similar suit was filed in state court in Caddo Parish, Louisiana against CERC with respect to rates charged to a purported class of certain consumers of natural gas and gas service in the State of Louisiana. In February 2004, another suit was filed in state court in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana against CERC seeking to recover alleged overcharges for gas or gas services allegedly provided by Southern Gas Operations to a purported class of certain consumers of natural gas and gas service without advance approval by the Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC).

In October 2004, a similar case was filed in district court in Miller County, Arkansas against the Company, CERC, Entex Gas Marketing Company, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company,CenterPoint Energy Field Services, CenterPoint Energy Pipeline Services, Inc., Mississippi River Transmission Corp. and other non-affiliated companies alleging fraud, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy with respect to rates charged to certain consumers of natural gas in at least the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas.

At the time of the filing of each of the Caddo and Calcasieu Parish cases, the plaintiffs in those cases filed petitions with the LPSC relating to the same alleged rate overcharges. The Caddo and Calcasieu Parish cases have been stayed pending the resolution of the respective proceedings by the LPSC. The plaintiffs in the Miller County case seek class certification, but the proposed class has not been certified. In November 2004, the Miller County case was removed to the United States District Court in Texarkana, Arkansas. In February 2005, the Wharton County case was removed to the United States District Court in Houston, Texas, and in March 2005, the plaintiffs in the Wharton County case moved to dismiss the case and agreed not to refile the claims asserted unless the Miller County case is not certified as a class action or is later decertified.

The range of relief sought by the plaintiffs in these cases includes injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution for the alleged overcharges, exemplary damages or trebling of actual damages, civil penalties and attorney's fees. In these cases, the Company, CERC and their affiliates deny that they have overcharged any of their customers for natural gas and believethat the amounts recovered for purchased gas have been in accordance with what is permitted by state regulatory authorities.

COCA-COLA CO.: Settles SEC Charges Over Japanese Gallon Pushing---------------------------------------------------------------The Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an enforcement action against The Coca-Cola Company relating to its failure to disclose certain end-of-quarter sales practices used to meet earnings expectations. Coca-Cola simultaneously agreed, without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, to settle the proceedings by consenting to a cease-and-desist order finding violations of the antifraud and periodic reporting requirements of the federal securities laws. Coca-Cola also voluntarily has undertaken steps to strengthen its internal disclosure review process to prevent future violations.

Richard Wessel, District Administrator of the Commission's Atlanta District Office, stated, "MD&A requires companies to provide investors with the truth behind the numbers. Coca-Cola misled investors by failing to disclose end of period practices that impacted the company's likely future operating results."

Katherine Addleman, Associate Director of Enforcement for the Commission's Atlanta District Office, stated, "In addition, Coca-Cola made misstatements in a January 2000 Form 8-K concerning a subsequent inventory reduction and in doing so continued to conceal the impact of prior end of period practices and further mislead investors."

In its order, the Commission found that, at or near the end of each reporting period between 1997 and 1999, Coca-Cola implemented an undisclosed "channel stuffing" practice in Japan known as "gallon pushing" for the purpose of pulling sales forward into a current period. To accomplish gallon pushing's purpose, Japanese bottlers were offered extended credit terms to induce them to purchase quantities of beverage concentrate the bottlers otherwise would not have purchased until a following period. As Coca-Cola typically sells gallons of concentrate to its bottlers corresponding to its bottlers' sales of finished products to retailers, typically bottlers' concentrate inventory levels increase approximately in proportion to their sales of finished products to retailers.

However, as a result of gallon pushing, from 1997 to 1999, Coca-Cola's Japanese bottlers' concentrate inventory levels increased at a rate more than five times greater than that of finished product sales to retailers. Gallon pushing pulled forward sales from subsequent periods and made it likely that Coca-Cola's bottlers would purchase less concentrate in subsequent periods. This practice contributed approximately $0.01 to $0.02 to Coca-Cola's quarterly earnings per share and was the difference in 8 out of the 12 quarters from 1997 through 1999 between Coca-Cola meeting and missing analysts' consensus or modified consensus earnings estimates. Despite the impact to current earnings and the likely impact to future earnings, Coca-Cola failed to disclose its gallon pushing practice in its periodic reports.

On Jan. 26, 2000, Coca-Cola filed a Form 8-K with the Commission, which disclosed, among other things, a worldwide concentrate inventory reduction planned to occur during the first half of the year 2000. The impact on Coca-Cola's earnings for the first and second quarter of 2000 was estimated to be between $0.11 and $0.13 per share. The Form 8-K did not disclose that more than $0.05 of the estimated earnings impact would be attributable to an anticipated reduction of sales for Japan with a corresponding gross profit impact more than five times greater than that of any other operating division in the world.

In describing the inventory reduction, Coca-Cola stated that: (a) "[t]hroughout the past several months, [Coca-Cola had] worked with bottlers around the world to determine the optimum level of bottler inventory;" (b) the management of Coca-Cola and its bottlers, specifically including bottlers in Japan, had jointly determined "that opportunities exist to reduce concentrate inventory carried by bottlers;" and (c) certain bottlers throughout the world, specifically including those in Japan, had "indicated that they intend to reduce their inventory levels during the first half of the year 2000."

The Commission found that these statements were false and misleading because a review of inventory levels had not occurred throughout the past several months but began, at the earliest, in January 2000. Moreover, prior to the Form 8-K being filed, bottlers were not aware of any planned inventory reduction. The Form 8-K further is misleading in that, despite its language describing the inventory reduction as a joint proactive efficiency measure between Coca-Cola and its bottlers, the inventory reduction was in fact solely a Coca-Cola initiative.

Although Coca-Cola's accounting treatment for sales made in connection with gallon pushing was found to be without issue, the Commission still found that Coca-Cola's failure to disclose the impact of gallon pushing on current and future earnings, as well as the false statements and omissions within the Form 8-K, violated the antifraud and periodic reporting requirements of the federal securities laws.

Ms. Addleman commented, "Prior to and during the investigation, Coca-Cola took laudable and substantial steps to enhance and strengthen its disclosure review process to prevent similar failures from occurring in the future."

The Commission acknowledges the substantial assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia, the Atlanta Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Japanese Financial Services Agency in the investigation of Coca-Cola's conduct.

COSI INC.: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY--------------------------------------------------------------Cosi, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it, various of its officers and directors and the underwriter of its IPO.

Nine suits were initially filed, alleging that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by misstating, and by failing to disclose, certain financial and other business information. These actions have been consolidated in "In re Cosi, Inc. Securities Litigation."

On July 7, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, alleging on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Company stock allegedly traceable to its November 22, 2002 IPO, that at the time of the IPO, its offering materials failed to disclose that the funds raised through the IPO would be insufficient to implement the Company's expansion plan; that it was improbable that the Company would be able to open 53 to 59 new restaurants in 2003; that at the time of the IPO, the Company had negative working capital and therefore did not have available working capital to repay certain debts; and that the principal purpose for going forward with the IPO was to repay certain existing shareholders and members of the Board of Directors for certain debts and to operate the Company's existing restaurants. The plaintiffs in the Securities Act Litigation generally seek to recover recessionary damages, expert fees, attorneys' fees, costs of Court and pre- and post-judgment interest.

On August 22, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, which was substantially similar to the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 22, 2003, the Company filed motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Securities Act Litigation. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on October 23, 2003. The Company filed reply briefs on November 12, 2003.

On July 30, 2004, the Court granted plaintiffs permission to replead their complaint against the Company. On September 10, 2004, plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs abandoned their claim that the Company misled investors about its ability to execute its growth plans. Instead, plaintiffs claim that the Company's offering materials failed to disclose that, at the time of the IPO, the Company was researching the possibility of franchising its restaurants.

On October 12, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Third Consolidated Amended Complaint. On November 19, 2004, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss. On January 11, 2005, the Company filed a reply brief in further support of our motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Third Consolidated Complaint. The Company has requested that the court hear an oral argument on the matter. If the request for oral argument is granted, the judge will take the arguments under submission.

CROSS COUNTRY: Employees Launch CA Wage Law Violations Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------Cross County TravCorps, Inc. faces a purported class action captioned "Theodora Cossack, et. al. v. Cross Country TravCorps, Inc. and Cross Country Nurses, Inc.," filed pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County. The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants failed to pay plaintiffs, and the class they purport to represent, properly under California law.

Plaintiffs, who purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege that Defendants failed to pay plaintiffs, and the class they purport to represent, properly under California law. Plaintiffs claim that defendants failed to:

(i) pay nurses hourly overtime as required by California law;

(ii) failed to calculate correctly their employees' regular rate of pay used to calculate the rate at which overtime hours are to be compensated;

(iii) failed to calculate correctly and pay a double time premium for all hours worked in excess of 12 in a workday;

(iv) scheduled some of its employees on an alternative workweek schedule, but failed to pay them additional compensation when those employees did not work such alternative workweek, as scheduled;

(v) failed to pay for missed meal and rest breaks; and

(vi) failed to pay employees for the minimum hours defendants had promised them.

Plaintiffs seek (among other things) an order enjoining defendants from engaging in the practices challenged in the complaint; for an order for full restitution of all monies Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs (and their purported class); for pre-judgment interest; for certain penalties provided for by the California Labor Code; and for attorneys' fees and costs.

CROSS COUNTRY: Plaintiffs Withdraw Securities Fraud Suits in FL---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed three class actions filed against Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, namely:

(1) Peter A. Cohen, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., Joseph Boshart and Emil Hensel;

(2) City of Ann Arbor Employees Retirement System v. Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., Joseph A. Boshart and Emil Hensel; and

(3) Robert Husted and Marcella Husted, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., Joseph Boshart and Emil Hensel

The suits were filed in August 2004 on behalf of the plaintiffs in those lawsuits and all other persons who acquired the Company's Common Stock during the period October 25, 2001 through August 6, 2002. The lawsuits were brought against Joseph Boshart (President and CEO of Cross Country and a director) and Emil Hensel (Chief Financial Officer of Cross Country and a director) and the Company.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits alleged, among other things, that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by, among other things, issuing public documents and statements that were materially false and misleading concerning the Company's business, operations and prospects which artificially inflated the price of the Company's Common Stock. The complaints further alleged that:

(i) defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that hospitals were hiring fewer of the Company's nurses;

(ii) the shortage of nurses was no longer creating as strong a demand for temporary nurses; and

(iii) the Company had problems with staffing orders being received from hospitals and then abruptly cancelled

COCA-COLA CO.: Settles SEC Charges Over Japanese Gallon Pushing---------------------------------------------------------------The Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an enforcement action against The Coca-Cola Company relating to its failure to disclose certain end-of-quarter sales practices used to meet earnings expectations. Coca-Cola simultaneously agreed, without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, to settle the proceedings by consenting to a cease-and-desist order finding violations of the antifraud and periodic reporting requirements of the federal securities laws. Coca-Cola also voluntarily has undertaken steps to strengthen its internal disclosure review process to prevent future violations.

Richard Wessel, District Administrator of the Commission's Atlanta District Office, stated, "MD&A requires companies to provide investors with the truth behind the numbers. Coca-Cola misled investors by failing to disclose end of period practices that impacted the company's likely future operating results."

Katherine Addleman, Associate Director of Enforcement for the Commission's Atlanta District Office, stated, "In addition, Coca-Cola made misstatements in a January 2000 Form 8-K concerning a subsequent inventory reduction and in doing so continued to conceal the impact of prior end of period practices and further mislead investors."

In its order, the Commission found that, at or near the end of each reporting period between 1997 and 1999, Coca-Cola implemented an undisclosed "channel stuffing" practice in Japan known as "gallon pushing" for the purpose of pulling sales forward into a current period. To accomplish gallon pushing's purpose, Japanese bottlers were offered extended credit terms to induce them to purchase quantities of beverage concentrate the bottlers otherwise would not have purchased until a following period. As Coca-Cola typically sells gallons of concentrate to its bottlers corresponding to its bottlers' sales of finished products to retailers, typically bottlers' concentrate inventory levels increase approximately in proportion to their sales of finished products to retailers.

However, as a result of gallon pushing, from 1997 to 1999 Coca-Cola's Japanese bottlers' concentrate inventory levels increased at a rate more than five times greater than that of finished product sales to retailers. Gallon pushing pulled forward sales from subsequent periods and made it likely that Coca-Cola's bottlers would purchase less concentrate in subsequent periods. This practice contributed approximately $0.01 to $0.02 to Coca-Cola's quarterly earnings per share and was the difference in 8 out of the 12 quarters from 1997 through 1999 between Coca-Cola meeting and missing analysts' consensus or modified consensus earnings estimates. Despite the impact to current earnings and the likely impact to future earnings, Coca-Cola failed to disclose its gallon pushing practice in its periodic reports.

On Jan. 26, 2000, Coca-Cola filed a Form 8-K with the Commission, which disclosed, among other things, a worldwide concentrate inventory reduction planned to occur during the first half of the year 2000. The impact on Coca-Cola's earnings for the first and second quarter of 2000 was estimated to be between $0.11 and $0.13 per share. The Form 8-K did not disclose that more than $0.05 of the estimated earnings impact would be attributable to an anticipated reduction of sales for Japan with a corresponding gross profit impact more than five times greater than that of any other operating division in the world.

In describing the inventory reduction, Coca-Cola stated that: (a) "[t]hroughout the past several months, [Coca-Cola had] worked with bottlers around the world to determine the optimum level of bottler inventory;" (b) the management of Coca-Cola and its bottlers, specifically including bottlers in Japan, had jointly determined "that opportunities exist to reduce concentrate inventory carried by bottlers;" and (c) certain bottlers throughout the world, specifically including those in Japan, had "indicated that they intend to reduce their inventory levels during the first half of the year 2000."

The Commission found that these statements were false and misleading because a review of inventory levels had not occurred throughout the past several months but began, at the earliest, in January 2000. Moreover, prior to the Form 8-K being filed, bottlers were not aware of any planned inventory reduction. The Form 8-K further is misleading in that, despite its language describing the inventory reduction as a joint proactive efficiency measure between Coca-Cola and its bottlers, the inventory reduction was in fact solely a Coca-Cola initiative.

Although Coca-Cola's accounting treatment for sales made in connection with gallon pushing was found to be without issue, the Commission still found that Coca-Cola's failure to disclose the impact of gallon pushing on current and future earnings, as well as the false statements and omissions within the Form 8-K, violated the antifraud and periodic reporting requirements of the federal securities laws.

Ms. Addleman commented, "Prior to and during the investigation, Coca-Cola took laudable and substantial steps to enhance and strengthen its disclosure review process to prevent similar failures from occurring in the future."

The Commission acknowledges the substantial assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia, the Atlanta Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Japanese Financial Services Agency in the investigation of Coca-Cola's conduct.

eFUNDS CORPORATION: FL Court Stays Proceedings in Privacy Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida stayed proceedings in the class action filed against eFunds Corporation and other defendants, case pending the decision by the Eleventh Circuit of Appeals in "Kehoe v. Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust.

The complaint in this action alleges that the Company purchased motor vehicle records from the State of Florida and used that data for marketing and other purposes that are not permitted under the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The plaintiffs are seeking liquidated damages of not less than $2,500 for each affected member of a purported class, plus costs and attorney's fees. The plaintiffs are also asking for injunctive relief to prevent further alleged violations of the Federal Act.

In March 2004, the Company joined in a motion to dismiss this case filed by a co-defendant and the Company filed its own further motion to dismiss a portion of this case and a motion for summary judgment in June 2004. All of these motions are pending before the Court.

FLORIDA: County Reaches $4.5M Settlement For Strip-Search Suit-------------------------------------------------------------- Three women, who were strip searched after being arrested during the 2003 free-trade protests, have forced Miami-Dade County to end indiscriminate searches and to pay $4.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit, The Associated Press reports. The tentative settlement of the suit, which was filed by activists Judith Haney, Liat Mayer and Jamie Loughner was signed recently by U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan in Miami.

Terry Coble, president of the Greater Miami Chapter of the ACLU, told The South Florida Sun-Sentinel, "Body cavity searches are extremely violating for anyone but particularly for women."

According to the newspaper, which is published in Fort Lauderdale, the terms of the settlement apply to those arrested between March 5, 2000 and February 28, 2005, which could involve up to 100,000 people, although many would get only $10. Court documents revealed that the women were arrested in 2003 during a Free Trade Area of the Americas meeting in downtown Miami. The women claimed that while in county jail they were invasively searched.

The practice, which the jail had been doing for years, didn't come to the notice of the plaintiffs' lawyers until after police arrested 234 people during the meeting. Randall Berg, executive director of the Florida Justice Institute and a lawyer for the women told the Sun-Sentinel, "That's how we found out about it, the FTAA."

Miami-Dade County denied any wrongdoing and agreed to the settlement because it's a favorable resolution, said Assistant County Attorney Jeffrey Ehrlich. He also said that the county has changed its procedures and agreed to comply with state law, which bars jail officials from strip-searching people who have been arrested for minor offenses unless the person is arrested on a drug charge, is suspected of having contraband or is booked on a violent offense. The law requires supervisors to give written authorization for such a search.

Ms. Haney, 50, a project manager at a California biotech firm told The South Florida Sun-Sentinel from Tampa that she felt attacked when jail officials ordered her to take off her clothes, bend over and hop as she was being booked. The procedure is supposed to dislodge any hidden weapon or contraband. "It was a small room with a door facing a hallway where anyone on legitimate business could walk by and see me naked," she said.

Four other plaintiffs later joined the three women. According to the payout formula, the seven will divide $300,000. Anyone arrested on a charge dealing with violence, drugs or weapons that was strip-searched without the approval of a supervising officer is entitled to $10, according to the settlement.

HUB INTERNATIONAL: JPMDL Transfers Insurance Fee Lawsuits To NJ---------------------------------------------------------------The Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) transferred the class action filed against Hub International, Inc. and 29 other insurance brokers and insurance companies to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In October 2004, the Company was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in New York against 30 different insurance brokers and insurance companies. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants used the contingent commission structure to deprive policyholders of "independent and unbiased brokerage services, as well as free and open competition in the market for insurance."

In December 2004, the Company was also named as one of multiple defendants in two identical class actions filed in the United States District Court in Illinois, with allegations substantially similar to those in the first case. In January 2005, the Company was named as one of several defendants in a third class action filed in the United States District Court in Illinois, containing allegations substantially similar to those in the first case and the other Illinois federal class actions.

In the complaints, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants were involved in a scheme to manipulate the market for commercial insurance by steering clients to the insurer defendants for the purpose of obtaining undisclosed additional compensation in the form of commissions from insurers and by engaging in a bid-rigging scheme using false and/or inflated bids from insurers to clients. The plaintiffs allege violations of federal and state antitrust laws, conspiracy and violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) and (d), fraudulent concealment, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and violation of state unfair and deceptive practices statutes. The plaintiffs seek monetary relief, including treble damages, an injunction, costs and other relief, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 11,2005) reports.

On February 17, 2005 the JPMDL transferred the first case as well as three other class actions in which the Company is not named to the District of New Jersey. The Company expects that the three class actions filed in the United States District Court in Illinois will also be transferred to New Jersey.

The OptiCare suit is styled "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, case no. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the United States District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Faith S. Hochberg. Representing the Company is Shawn Patrick Regan, HUNTON AND WILLIAMS, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 Phone: 212-309-1046.

HUB INTERNATIONAL: Law Firm Launches Consumer Fraud Suit in IL--------------------------------------------------------------Hub International, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The named plaintiff is a Chicago law firm that obtained its professional liability insurance through the Company's Chicago hub and claims that an undisclosed contingent commission was received with respect to its policy.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company denied this and the other allegations of the complaint and said it intended to vigorously defend this case.

MAYTAG CORPORATION: Firms Settle IL Suit Over Defective Machines----------------------------------------------------------------The Philadelphia-based law firm of Sheller Ludwig & Badey and the Ambler, PA-based law firm of Kimmel & Silverman, have resolved a class action law suit against the Maytag Corporation, alleging odor, mold and mildew problems with Maytag Neptune Wasters. More than two million consumers are included in the class, and may receive repair reimbursements, replacement costs up to $500, and/or washing machine purchase certificates up to $1000. Jonathan Shub of the Sheller firm served as one of three co-lead counsel in the Maytag case.

According to documents filed in the Circuit Court for the State of Illinois, many Maytag consumers have complained of their machine functioning improperly and clothing covered in mold, as a result of problems with the door latch, wax motor, motor control, and related circuit boards.

"The number of complaints coming in from across the nation to our firm was quite high, among the most we've ever received. It was clear that a number of problems needed to be addressed by Maytag. Thanks to all co-counsel and the relative speed with which Maytag responded, consumers were able to use the class action the way it was intended, for the benefit of all, more quickly, and at a significant reduced cost than if each consumer sued individually," according to Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq. for Kimmel & Silverman.

Under the settlement, those who purchased a Maytag Neptune Front-Load Washing Machine (any model, including stackables) any time between April 1, 1997 to August 9, 2004 are entitled to one or more of the following remedies:

(1) Repair Reimbursements, defined as any reasonable out- of-pocket costs related to repairs prior to August 9, 2004 for problems mentioned in the suit.

(2) Replacement Costs of up to $500, subject to depreciation, for each Maytag customer who replaced their Maytag Neptune Washer prior to August 9, 2004 as a result of the problems mentioned in the suit.

(3) Washing Machine Purchase Certificates of up to $1000, if class member suffer the problems mentioned in the suit, and Maytag can't repair the condition. The value of the certificate is based on the age of the machine. The certificates may be used for the purchase of a new Neptune Washer. Maytag will also cover delivery of the new machine and disposal of the old unit.

MEDSTAFF INC.: Employees Launch CA Wage Law Violations Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------MedStaff, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action captioned "Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda, et al. v. MedStaff, Inc." filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Riverside.

Plaintiffs, who purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege that Defendant failed to pay plaintiffs, and the class they purport to represent, properly under California law. Plaintiffs claim that defendant failed to provide meal period and rest breaks and pay for those missed meal periods and rest breaks; failed to compensate the employees for all hours worked; failed to compensate the employees for overtime worked more than eight hours in a day or forty hours in a week; and failed to keep appropriate records to keep track of time worked.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order enjoining defendant from engaging in the practices challenged in the complaint; for an order for full restitution of all monies Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs and their purported class; for interest; for certain penalties provided for by the California Labor Code; and for attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the federal judge, he granted Microsoft's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, because some of the plaintiffs were not allowed to sue due to their status as municipal corporations and that the statute of limitations had expired on several of the claims.

The plaintiffs, which included the City and County of San Francisco, city of Los Angeles and the counties of Santa Clara, San Mateo and Los Angeles, had sued the Redmond, Washington-based software maker last August for violating antitrust and unfair competition laws in California.

In a press statement Microsoft spokeswoman Stacy Drake said, "Today's decision granting Microsoft's motion to dismiss is welcome news. We look forward to continuing to work with California government agencies to help deliver technology solutions to their communities," Reuters reports.

NETGEAR INC.: Consumers Launch Two Fraud Lawsuits in CA Court-------------------------------------------------------------NETGEAR, Inc. faces two class actions filed in the Superior Court of California, county of Santa Clara, on behalf of all persons or entities in the United States who purchased the Company's wireless products other than for resale.

In June 2004, a lawsuit, entitled "Zilberman v. NETGEAR, Civil Action CV021230," was filed, alleging that the Company made false representations concerning the data transfer speeds of its wireless products when used in typical operating circumstances, and is requesting injunctive relief, payment of restitution and reasonable attorney fees. Limited discovery is currently under way and no trial date has been set.

In February 2005, a lawsuit, entitled "McGrew v. NETGEAR," was filed in the same court, making the same allegations and purports to represent the same class of persons and entities as the Zilberman suit.

NETGEAR INC.: Reaches Settlement in 4Q2004 For Consumer Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------NETGEAR, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, styled "Weaver v. NETGEAR, Civil Action RG04161382." The complaint purported to be a class action on behalf of persons who obtained any consumer product manufactured by the Company and sold in California on or after January 1, 2004. Plaintiff alleged that the Company violated California law because it did not disclose on its website that the failure to register a product does not diminish the product's warranty.

In the fourth quarter of 2004, the Company and the plaintiff settled the lawsuit that provided for a payment of $17,500 by the Company, and the Court approved the settlement resulting in the dismissal of the matter.

PURINA MILLS: Recalls Deer Feed Due To Monensin Sodium Content--------------------------------------------------------------Purina Mills, LLC, is voluntarily recalling a specific lot of 50-pound bags of Antlermax Deer 20 deer feed. The affected product was manufactured in Lubbock, Texas, February 15, 2005, and sold after that date. It was shipped to seven feed and supply retail stores in west Texas and distributed in west Texas and eastern New Mexico.

The specific packages within the lot included in this limited recall have the lot number 5FEB15LUB1 printed on the sewing strip of each bag. Laboratory testing found a potentially harmful level of monensin sodium (Rumensin) in some bags from this lot.

Monensin sodium is a drug compound that is approved for use in some livestock species. It is not approved for use in deer feed. The FDA has limited information to assess the safety of this drug when consumed by deer and limited information to assess the potential for hazardous residues in edible tissues. Additionally, inadvertent feeding of this product to horses can be fatal because horses are especially sensitive to Monensin. You should not continue to store or use this product.

Customers who have purchased the Antlermax Deer 20 with the specified lot number are asked to return the product to their dealer for replacement.

Purina Mills discovered this issue as the result of a complaint from a deer rancher. The problem has been corrected and this voluntary recall does not include any other Purina Mills products, or other lots of Antlermax Deer 20.

Questions or concerns may be directed to the company's Lubbock Feed Plant Customer Service Department toll free at (800) 375-8766.

RELIANT ENERGY: TX Court Grants Certification To Securities Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division granted class certification to the consolidated lawsuit filed against Reliant Energy, Inc., Reliant Resources, Inc. (RRI), underwriters of the initial public offering of RRI's common stock in May 2001 (RRI Offering), and RRI's and the Company's independent auditors.

Fifteen class action lawsuits filed in May, June and July 2002 on behalf of purchasers of securities of RRI and/or the Company, and were later consolidated in federal district court in Houston. The consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary relief purportedly on behalf of purchasers of common stock of the Company or RRI during certain time periods ranging from February 2000 to May 2002, and purchasers of common stock that can be traced to the RRI Offering. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants misrepresented their revenues and trading volumes by engaging in round-trip trades and improperly accounted for certain structured transactions as cash-flow hedges, which resulted in earnings from these transactions being accounted for as future earnings rather than being accounted for as earnings in fiscal year 2001.

In January 2004 the trial judge dismissed the plaintiffs' allegations that the defendants had engaged in fraud, but claims based on alleged misrepresentations in the registration statement issued in the RRI Offering remain. In June 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted in February 2005. The defendants have appealed the court's order certifying the class.

The suit is styled "Boca Raton Police &, et al v. Reliant Resources, et al, case no. 4:02-cv-01810," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr. Representing the plaintiffs are:

RELIANT ENERGY: Plaintiff Withdraws ERISA Fraud Suit in S.D. TX---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed one of the two class actions filed against Reliant Energy, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on behalf of participants in various employee benefits plans sponsored by the Company.

Three suits were initially filed. Two of the lawsuits have been dismissed without prejudice. The Company and certain current and former members of its benefits committee are the remaining defendants in the third lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to various employee benefits plans, directly or indirectly sponsored by the Company, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants permitted the plans to purchase or hold securities issued by the Company when it was imprudent to do so, including after the prices for such securities became artificially inflated because of alleged securities fraud engaged in by the defendants. The complaint seeks monetary damages for losses suffered on behalf of the plans and a putative class of plan participants whose accounts held the Company's or RRI securities, as well as restitution.

In July 2004, another class action suit was filed in federal court on behalf of the Reliant Energy Savings Plan and a class consisting of participants in that plan against the company and the Reliant Energy Benefits Committee. The allegations and the relief sought in the new suit are substantially similar tothose in the previously pending suit; however, the new suit also alleges that the Company and its Benefits Committee breached their fiduciary duties to the Savings Plan and its participants by investing plan funds in Company stock when Reliant Energy or its subsidiaries were allegedly manipulating the California energy market. On October 14, 2004, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the newly filed lawsuit.

RELIANT ENERGY: 45 Claims Remain in Franchise Fee Lawsuit in TX---------------------------------------------------------------Reliant Energy, Inc. continues to face claims of 45 cities in litigation related to the underpayment of municipal franchise fees, pending in the District Court in Harris County, Texas.

In February 1996, the cities of Wharton, Galveston and Pasadena (Three Cities) filed suit in state district court in Harris County, Texas for themselves and a proposed class of all similarly situated cities in the Company's electric service area, against the Company and Houston Industries Finance, Inc. (formerly a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company's predecessor, Reliant Energy). The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to 4% of all receipts of any kind for business conducted within these cities over the previous four decades.

After a jury trial, involving the Three Cities' claims (but not the class of cities), the trial court entered a judgment on the Three Cities' breach of contract claims for $1.7 million, including interest, plus an award of $13.7 million in legal fees. It also decertified the class. Following this ruling, 45 cities filed individual suits against the Company in the District Court of Harris County.

On February 27, 2003, a state court of appeals in Houston rendered an opinion reversing the judgment against the Company and rendering judgment that the Three Cities take nothing by their claims. The court of appeals held that all of the Three Cities' claims were barred by the jury's finding of laches, a defense similar to the statute of limitations, due to the Three Cities' having unreasonably delayed bringing their claims during the more than 30 years since the alleged wrongs began. The court also held that the Three Cities were not entitled to recover any attorneys' fees. The Three Cities filed a petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. Thus, the Three Cities' claims have been finally resolved in the Company's favor, but the individual claims of the 45 cities remain pending in the same court.

Today's nationwide alert applies to SeaSpecialities product packaged in 8-oz vacuum-packed bags under the "Mama's" and "King Salmon" brands. The Mama's brand products are sold in individual 8-oz. packages marked: "SELL BY AUG 22 2005 32178". They may also be in shipping cartons labeled: "08/22/05 SELL BY 32178". No coding or packaging information on the King Salmon brand product is available.

Recently both FDA and the State of Florida have issued public alerts about other potentially contaminated products from the firm. The contamination was noted after routine testing by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that sometimes causes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such a high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among infected pregnant women.

Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the Recall Coordinator at (305) 621-7600 ext. 211.

SOUTH AFRICA: Congo Refugees Set To Receive Foster Care Grants--------------------------------------------------------------The South African government will not oppose a Pretoria High Court application by political refugees seeking immediate access to foster care grants for children in their care, according to Selwyn Jehoma, the Department of Social Development's chief director for grants systems and administration, The Sunday Times reports.

Mr. Jehoma told The Sunday Times, "The government... will not oppose the matter. In fact, we made a submission to court outlining the work we intend to do towards ensuring we process the applications."

Three refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have lodged an application for access to the government's R570 monthly foster care grant for each of nine children in their combined care.

The case was brought in the form of a class action on behalf of all refugees experiencing problems accessing the grant in South Africa. Legal Resources Centre lawyer Sheldon Magardie, who represents the three, said that if the case is won, the ruling would apply to all refugee foster parents. The Minister, Director-General and KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Social Development, as well as the Minister and Director-General of Home Affairs are cited as the five respondents in the case.

The applicants are part-time hairdresser Coco Bishogo, who looks after two foster children, informal trader Musenge Langa, who looks after five and unemployed Maulu Baangi, who looks after two. They fled the DRC between 1999 and 2002, claiming they feared being killed because of the political situation in that country. The children that they look after are aged between four and 16, all orphans taken in by friends and relatives.

In a founding affidavit, the three applicants say they had been trying to access the foster grant, which they claim to be legally entitled to, for one and two years respectively. But, the government's computer system rejected the identity numbers assigned to each of the three on their so-called refugee identity documents, and was therefore unable to process their applications.

The affidavit states, "We are compelled to use identity documents issued by the respondents themselves. The fact that they contain identity numbers that are not compatible with their computers is a predicament of their own making." In their affidavit, the applicants set out in detail their financial difficulties, claiming to face "manifold difficulties every day of our lives in this foreign land". They further claim that many days they had to seek assistance from relief agencies and said, "Our foster children are near to being impoverished," the Sunday Times reports

By volunteering themselves as foster parents, they say, "we effectively assumed a responsibility that fell on the respondents." They further said, according to the Sunday Times, "We did it out of a sense of compassion and commitment to the foster children who are our compatriots. Respondents and their functionaries have rewarded our benevolence by shoving us contemptuously from pillar to post."

In addition, the three say they had not anticipated this fate when accepting responsibility for the children. "Our dignity has lost its luster," they add. They are now seeking an order compelling the government to put mechanisms in place to allow their applications to be processed, and for the grants to become payable within 10 days of the court's judgment. Additionally, they also seek a combined R66,100 what they claim are arrears payable since their applications were first made, plus 15.5% interest, the Sunday Times reports.

SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suits in N.D. CA----------------------------------------------------------------SupportSoft, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suits also names as defendants officers Radha R. Basu, and Brian M. Beattie. The suits are styled:

The complaints allege generally violations of certain federal securities laws and seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 20, 2004 and October 1, 2004. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and guidance for the third quarter 2004, purportedly violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The cases will likely be consolidated into one action.

TEXAS GENCO: Forges Settlement For TX Suit V. CenterPoint Merger----------------------------------------------------------------Texas Genco Holdings, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated shareholder class action filed against it and each of its directors in the District Court of Harris County, Texas.

On July 23, 2004, two plaintiffs, both Company shareholders, filed virtually identical lawsuits on behalf of holders of Company common stock. Both plaintiffs allege, among other things, self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants in entering into the July 2004 agreement to sell the Company. As part of their allegations of self-dealing, both plaintiffs claim that the board of directors of the Company is controlled by CenterPoint Energy, that the defendants improperly concealed results of the Company's results of operations for the second quarter of 2004 until after the transaction agreement was announced and that, in order to aid CenterPoint Energy, the Texas Genco board only searched for acquirers who would offer all-cash consideration. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the transaction or, alternatively, rescind the transaction and/or recover damages in the event that the transaction is consummated.

In August 2004, the cases were consolidated in state district court in Harris County, Texas. Although the defendants continueto deny liability, in February 2005, all parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the lawsuit based upon supplemental disclosures made by the Company and the extension of the deadline for the exercise of shareholder dissenters' rights. The settlement is subject to the parties' preparation of a stipulation of settlement and court approval of the settlement.

UNITED STATES: Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit V. Vatican Bank---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit brought by Holocaust survivors who had sued the Vatican Bank on charges it laundered assets stolen from victims of Croatia's pro-Nazi World War Two regime, The Reuters News Agency reports.

The federal appeals court decision reversed a lower court ruling that had dismissed the case on grounds that foreign policy rather than lawsuits should address such historical claims. In its ruling the three-judge panel pointed out that some of the plaintiffs' key claims such as ones relating to lost and looted property did not fall under the political question doctrine. They also pointed out that even the U.S. Supreme Court has left open the door to lawsuits that touch upon foreign diplomacy. In addition the panel wrote in its ruling, "We conclude that some of the claims are barred by the political question doctrine and some of the claims are justifiable. Although the parties have multiple procedural and substantive challenges to overcome down the road, they are entitled to their day - or years - in court on the justifiable claims."

The elderly Holocaust survivors originally filed the class action lawsuit in U.S. federal court in San Francisco in 1999 against the Vatican Bank and the Franciscan Order. The survivors who are the named plaintiffs in the suit accused the Vatican Bank of receiving hundreds of millions of dollars of gold and other assets looted from victims of Croatia's brutal Ustasha regime from 1941-1945. By some estimates about 700,000 people most of them Serbs were killed at death camps run by the Nazi-allied government. Furthermore, they also alleged that the illicit funds may have been funneled to groups working to smuggle Nazis out of Europe after the war, including Adolf Eichmann, Reuters reports. The lawsuit though, which the lower court dismissed in 2003, did not seek any specific monetary amount but instead asked for, at least initially, a review of how much money was involved.

The Vatican Bank, which has denied the allegations, had argued foreign policy, not lawsuits, should address such historical claims. However, the U.S. appeals court upheld the lower court's dismissal of some of the plaintiffs' allegations such as charges the Vatican Bank assisted the Nazi-allied Ustasha political movement, saying the issue was outside judicial jurisdiction.

The lawyer though, who represented the original 24 plaintiffs many of whom live in San Francisco expressed hope the case would move forward quickly as some of the survivors have been waiting more than 50 years for restitution.

Kathryn Lee Boyd, who is a professor at Pepperdine University Law School, told Reuters "We're very pleased, very happy to have this case resurrected. We were successful on many of the claims - the property claims were the meat of the case."

VISTEON CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suit in MI---------------------------------------------------------------Visteon Corporation faces a securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The suit also names as defendants certain of the Company's current and former officers, namely:

(1) Peter Pestillo,

(2) Michael Johnston,

(3) Glenda J. Minor,

(4) Daniel R. Coulson and

(5) James Palmer

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made misleading statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The named individual plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period between January 23, 2004 and January 31, 2005. Class action status has not yet been certified in this litigation. The Company is in the process of evaluating the claims in this lawsuit.

BLUE COAT: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated the class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Blue Coat Systems, Inc. ("Blue Coat" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: BCSI), claiming that the Company misled investors about its finances.

The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Blue Coat common stock from February 20, 2004 through and including May 27, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.

Since its founding in 1996, Blue Coat never turned a profit. Then, on February 19, 2004, Blue Coat announced an unprecedented increase in sales and its first profitable quarter. During the Company's conference call held after the close of trading that same day, Blue Coat stated a belief that gross margins in the following quarter would fall in the range of 68-69%.

This news caused the Company's stock to increase $6.75, to close at $38.27 on February 20, 2004. Almost immediately following the Company's positive earnings announcement, defendants started selling massive amounts of Blue Coat stock, at prices ranging from $40-$52 per share.

On May 27, 2004, the Company shocked investors by announcing that the purported gross margin calculation had fallen short for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004 and that profitability was lower than that achieved in the prior quarter.

On this news, shares of the Company's common stock plummeted from $39.27, on May 27, 2004, to close at $27.80 on May 28, 2004, a drop of $11.47, or 29%.

On April 7, 2005, Blue Coat announced that the SEC had commenced a formal investigation into the Company, focusing on "whether certain present or former officers, directors, employees, affiliates or others made intentional or non- intentional selective disclosure of material nonpublic information, traded in the Company's stock while in possession of such information, or communicated such information to others who thereafter traded in the Company's stock."

CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Sauer & Wagner Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Sauer & Wagner LLP initiated a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Citigroup Global Markets Inc. F/K/A Salomon Smith Barney Inc. ("Citigroup") on behalf of former clients of Paul Joseph Sheehan D/B/A Paul J. Sheehan & Associates ("Sheehan"), who maintained investment accounts at Citigroup, from April 1, 1999 to September 30, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit charges Citigroup with violations of federal securities and California law as a direct result of enabling Sheehan, an investment advisor, to engage in a fraudulent "trade allocation" or "cherry-picking" scheme whereby Sheehan improperly allocated profitable day trades of securities to his personal investment accounts maintained at Citigroup at the expense of his clients' personal investment accounts also maintained at Citigroup. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Citigroup permitted Sheehan to initiate day trades at Citigroup through the use of a trade allocation account (the "Sheehan Allocation Account") and to provide allocation instructions electronically to Citigroup at the end of each trading day. As a direct result of allowing Sheehan to allocate trades in this manner, Sheehan knew which of the day trades had been profitable before transmitting allocation instructions to Citigroup, and he was able to allocate profitable trades to his personal investment accounts to the detriment of his clients.

The Complaint further alleges that throughout the Class Period, Citigroup made material misrepresentations in documents and statements issued to Sheehan's clients by omitting material facts concerning the following:

(1) the commingling of client assets in the Sheehan Allocation Account;

(2) the inherent conflict of interest in allowing Sheehan to dictate the allocation of day trades for his own benefit and for his clients' benefit at the end of each day when the outcome of each trade was known by Sheehan;

(3) the risks created by the procedures utilized at Citigroup in allocating trades by Sheehan; and

(4) the inequitable allocation of profits from day trades to Sheehan's personal accounts to the detriment of his clients.

COLLINS & AIKMAN: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Lawsuit in MI----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Collins & Aikman Corp. (NYSE: CKC).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from May 6, 2004 through March 17, 2005.

DELPHI COPRORATION: Berger & Montague Lodges ERISA Lawsuit in MI----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action lawsuit, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Delphi Corporation's (NYSE: DPH) pension plans.

The lawsuit, brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), is on behalf of those participants since May 28, 1999, in the Delphi Savings-Stock Purchase Program for Salaried Employees in the U.S., Delphi Personal Savings Plan for Hourly-Rate Employees in the U.S., ASEC Manufacturing Savings Plan and Delphi Mechatronic Systems Savings-Stock Purchase Program.

The lawsuit alleges that plan fiduciaries breached their duties and responsibilities by, among other things, failing to investigate the prudence of an investment in Delphi stock and by making misrepresentations about the Company's accounting practices dating back to 1999.

The complaint charges fiduciaries of the plans with violations of ERISA, and alleges that during the Class Period, defendants knew or should have known that Delphi issued materially false and misleading financial statements caused by Delphi's improper accounting for off-balance sheet financing and vendor rebates. As a result of these false statements, the Company's stock climbed to as high as $17.40 per share during the Class Period. Upon the disclosures of the need to revise its financial statements, Delphi's stock dropped to as low as $5.41 per share before closing at $5.46 per share on March 4, 2005, some 68% below the Class Period high of $17.40 per share and a one-day drop of 14%, on volume of 24 million shares.

For more details, contact Berger & Montague by Phone: 888-891-2289 or by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net.

PETCO ANIMAL: Lerach Stoia Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. ("PETCO") (NASDAQ:PETC) common stock during the period between November 18, 2004 and April 14, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges PETCO and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. PETCO is a specialty retailer of premium pet food, supplies and services with 654 stores in 43 states and the District of Columbia.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused PETCO's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements. On November 18, 2004, PETCO announced Q3 2004 results and raised its guidance for FY 2004. The Company subsequently issued very favorable results for FY 2004. As a result, by April 2005, the Company's stock was trading above $37 per share. Then, on April 15, 2005, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release entitled "PETCO to Delay Filing of Form 10-K." The release stated that PETCO would delay the filing of its Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission and that it had requested a 15-day extension after it discovered accounting errors related to certain under-accrued expenses in its distribution operations. The Company anticipated its Q4 2004 earnings would be reduced by $3.0-$4.5 million and expected that FY 2005 earnings would be reduced by a similar amount, as it took into consideration the nature of the under-accrual of expenses. The stock dropped 15% to close at $30.36 per share on these revelations of accounting improprieties.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 by E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/petco/.

SHARPER IMAGE: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA ----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Sharper Image Corporation ("Sharper Image") (NASDAQ:SHRP) common stock during the period between February 5, 2004 and August 4, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Sharper Image and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Sharper Image is a specialty retailer of products in the electronics, recreation and fitness, personal care, houseware, travel, toy, gifts and other categories.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. As a result of these false statements, Sharper Image stock traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, whereby the Company's top officers and directors sold more than $18 million worth of their own shares. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:

(1) the Company businesses, including wholesale, Internet and catalog, were cannibalizing the Company's retail and infomercial sales;

(2) the Company's profitability was being adversely affected by a drastic slow down in the Company's key product, the Ionic Breeze family of air purifiers;

(3) when defendants attempted to acquire infomercial blocks of time in early 2004, they learned that these extra blocks of time had already been acquired as a result of the Olympics and the Presidential election, and the additional costs associated with infomercial time were seriously impacting the Company's margins associated with the Ionic Breeze family of products; and

(4) as a result, the Company's Q2 2004 projections of earnings per share of $0.09-$0.11 were grossly overstated.

On August 5, 2004, Sharper Image announced that Q2 2004 results would be much worse than previously represented, with EPS of only $0.03-$0.05 versus prior representations of $0.09-$0.11. On this news, Sharper Image shares fell 23%.

SHARPER IMAGE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Sharper Image Corporation (Nasdaq: SHRP) ("Sharper Image" or "the Company") between February 5, 2004 and August 4, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Sharper Image and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business condition. As a result, Sharper Image stock traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, whereby Company insiders sold over $18 million worth of their own shares. It is alleged that defendants failed to disclose that:

(1) the Company businesses were cannibalizing the Company's retail and infomercial sales;

(2) the Company's profitability was being adversely affected by a drastic slow down in the Company's key product, the Ionic Breeze family of air purifiers;

(3) when defendants attempted to acquire infomercial blocks of time in early 2004, they learned that these extra blocks had already been acquired as a result of the Olympics and the Presidential election, and the additional costs associated with infomercial time were seriously impacting the Company's margins associated with the Ionic Breeze family of products; and

(4) as a result, the Company's Q2 2004 projections of earnings per share of $0.09-$0.11 were grossly overstated.

On August 5, 2004, Sharper Image announced that Q2 2004 results would be worse than previously represented, with EPS of only $0.03-$0.05 versus prior representations of $0.09-$0.11. On this news, Sharper Image shares fell 23%.

VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Amended NY Stock Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed an amended class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Veeco Instruments, Inc. ("Veeco" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:VECO) between November 3, 2003 and February 10, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The amended lawsuit was filed against Veeco, Edward H. Braun and John F. Rein Jr. ("Defendants").

Since the filing of the initial complaint, Goodkind Labaton has conducted an investigation of the issues initially alleged and has uncovered significant material findings. These findings include that Veeco

(1) may have violated Export Administration Regulations by making multiple improper shipments of classified equipment to China and Malaysia restricted based upon national security and anti-terrorism grounds,

(2) failed to disclose that its export privileges were at risk given this improper conduct, and

(3) omitted material information from its classification requests to the Bureau of Industry and Security, which if it had been disclosed, would have resulted in adverse events for the Company.

In addition, the amended complaint contains the allegations in the original complaint related to Defendants' statements which were false and misleading because Defendants

(i) knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose that it had improperly valued the inventory and accounts payable at its TurboDisc division in order to make the acquisition look more attractive to the market,

(ii) falsely recognized revenue at TurboDisc during the class period, and

(iii) improperly overvalued its deferred tax assets.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of The Law Firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Phone: 800-321-0476 or visit their Web site: http://www.glrslaw.com/get/?case=Veeco.

WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in WA---------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: WGRD) common stock during the period between February 12, 2004 and March 15, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges WatchGuard and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. WatchGuard provides Internet security solutions designed to protect small to medium-sized enterprises that use the Internet for e-commerce and secure communications.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused WatchGuard's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements. As a result of this inflation, the Company's FY 2004 revenues were overstated.

On March 15, 2005, the Company announced that it was delaying its Q4 2004 and FY 2004 earnings call, would file a Notification of Late Filing with the SEC with respect to its annual report on Form 10-K and that it was restating its financial results for FY 2004. On this news, the stock fell below $3 per share.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants during the Class Period but concealed from the investing public, were as follows:

(1) the Company's Q1-Q3 2004 reported financial results were materially false and misleading due to inaccurate income statement classification of early pay incentive discounts taken by customers, under-accrual of customer rebate obligations and timing of revenue recognition associated with specific products and services (resulting from an overstatement of product revenue and an understatement of deferred revenue);

(2) the Company's February 12, 2004 projections were materially false and misleading;

(3) the functionality and value of the Company's "Firebox X" product was grossly overstated and this product did not materially or accurately improve the Company's gross margins, streamline the Company's management or otherwise reduce its reliance on custom components; and

(4) contrary to defendants' statements, the Firebox X was not tracking as defendants claimed.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.

*********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.